GRRM confirms that Dany has some heat immunity, but what is the point?

[The Idiots Lantern]

BTW, what was Mirri talking about when she told Dany that this is not how things are done and that she would show her? Did she have anything specific on mind, or was she just stalling to save herself from being burnt?

My guess is, if her song WAS some kind of "fireproof me" spell, then she was going to show Dany by singing and not burning. If that's the case, it didn't quite work.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I have already read it. And I wish you wouldn't imply that the only reason one might disagree with you is because they obviously haven't done enough research. This is the hostility we've been talking about.

One argument is based on someone who did pretty mind-boggling analysis of the entire pyre scene to reach her conclusion. The other is based on people who are so desperately eager to make Dany magical that they're actually arguing that her tolerating hot baths is evidence of some genetic godliness. I wonder which one I should put more stock in ...

Like the author said, it was a miracle. And by definition, not something that could be planned, predicted or replicated. Everything GRRM says about the event hints at its miraculous nature, its one-time status — nothing to suggest that it had jack shit to do with Dany or more specifically with any inherent magical power she possessed. It was a freak event in the most literal sense. It can either be a miracle or it can be something to do with Dany having supar speshul dragonz blood. It can't be both and seeing as the author spelled out that it's the former, I'm pretty comfortable writing off that it's the latter — especially given that, for being allegedly magical, Dany has yet to have any episode close to what happened on the pyre; other people around her are doing magic; she does none.

And I'm still baffled as to where the idea of magical Targaryen blood being necessary to hatch dragons came from, given that Targaryens have been trying for 100+ years to hatch dragons and have failed. Shouldn't that be a clue that there's maybe possibly more to it or something else to it than that? If being a Targaryen was the Staples Easy Button, the Targs should've been hatching eggs left and right after the adult dragons died out — but they didn't. Why? ... Possibly because it has nothing to do with the blood? Maybe?

Let's say I swear up and down that Thing A is necessary to make my car start, but I've tried Thing A a hundred times and it has never worked. One day I decide to use Thing A and Thing B, and this time it starts. What's likelier? That Thing A was what did it, or Thing B? Wouldn't I be kind of, uh, obtuse, to still try to claim that Thing A was the component?

[Dr. Pepper]

BTW, what was Mirri talking about when she told Dany that this is not how things are done and that she would show her? Did she have anything specific on mind, or was she just stalling to save herself from being burnt?

I don't quite agree that the three bodies proved to be the missing link in the spell. Egg died in the fire at Summerhall along with Dunk and Dunk. As for the above, I think MMD did not expect that the oil would act as such an accelerant, or at least did not realize the fire would reach her before she completed her spell. She was not fighting when they led her to the pyre, so I think she always knew she would be singing her spell to protect her from the fire. She was already burning by the time the eggs were cracking and by the time the Dany was able to approach the pyre, so it seems that whatever skin was burning when the spell was complete, would keep on burning.

<snip>Which seems more magical to you, I suppose: the woman screaming and burning to death on a pyre or the one who arranged the fire, waits until the right time, then walks right into that selfsame fire and walks right out again, unscathed, holding three newborn baby dragons? Who's plan worked?

Idiot, what you described (in the portion I snipped for space) is more of an argument that Dany had a prophetic dream, not that her magical skill set is a superhuman ability to withstand hot baths. The Targaryens are known for prophetic dreams. They are not known for withstanding flames. The magical person at the scene - the one who was doing the work to cause the eggs to hatch and to create a fireproof moment - was MMD, not Dany. That MMD did not survive her own magic does not make her any less magical. Beric didn't survive his own magic, but we can't deny that his life and deaths and kiss of fire were not magical.

[AchillesReborn]

That would be extremely fucked up, Jon killing Ygritte and then Dany. And so a serial spouse-murderer became Azor Ahai Reborn and King of Westeros? Cm'on.

No that is not what I was thinking at all, more like this:

Danny is Nissa Nissa's reincarnation and her dragons are the lightbringer. Jon Snow is Azor Ahai and he no longer has to kill Nissa Nissa to create a weapon because this weapon created once forever bonded Nissa Nissa, Azor Ahai, and Lightbringer(Danny,Jon,and the dragons). The three heads of the dragon must join once again to fight The Great Other, and the legions of others.

And Jon didn't shoot the bow that killed Ygritte, he just experienced an unexpected casualty of war.

[Dr. Pepper]

No that is not what I was thinking at all, more like this:

Danny is Nissa Nissa's reincarnation and her dragons are the lightbringer. Jon Snow is Azor Ahai and he no longer has to kill Nissa Nissa to create a weapon because this weapon created once forever bonded Nissa Nissa, Azor Ahai, and Lightbringer(Danny,Jon,and the dragons). The three heads of the dragon must join once again to fight The Great Other, and the legions of others.

I'm reminded of that magnetic fridge poetry. Bunch of random words tossed together to form....something. I suppose we can call this wiki poetry.

[nirolo]

One argument is based on someone who did pretty mind-boggling analysis of the entire pyre scene to reach her conclusion. The other is based on people who are so desperately eager to make Dany magical that they're actually arguing that her tolerating hot baths is evidence of some genetic godliness. I wonder which one I should put more stock in ...

I have seen your posts Apple Martini. I enjoy them. I'd just like to get this out of the way.

The bolded part is your assumption. At least have the courtesy to admit that.

Let's say I swear up and down that Thing A is necessary to make my car start, but I've tried Thing A a hundred times and it has never worked. One day I decide to use Thing A and Thing B, and this time it starts. What's likelier? That Thing A was what did it, or Thing B? Wouldn't I be kind of, uh, obtuse, to still try to claim that Thing A was the component?

Let me give a modified version of your analogy:

Premise: To star your car, you need [A] and .

From this we can only draw two logical conclusions:

1. If your car starts, then you must also have satisfied [A] and . Simplified: If car starts, then you have A + B

2. If you have not satisfied either [A] or (or both), then your car will not start.

Having only one of A or B will guarantee your car will not start. Yet, having both A and B might not guarantee to start your car either. Since there might be a necessary condition [C] that no one knows about.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I have seen your posts Apple Martini. I enjoy them. I'd just like to get this out of the way.

The bolded part is your assumption. At least have the courtesy to admit that.

The thread is full of people using the "heat tolerance" quote to shore up their belief that Dany is magical. Where is the assumption? I reiterated what I saw, no more, no less.

And while I appreciate that you enjoy my posts, you misunderstand me if you think public approval is my goal here. I'd rather be correct than liked. It doesn't do a person much good to be liked if most of what they write is bunk. I have a core group on here with whom I'm close, and that's enough for me. I'm not running for any popularity contests.

I'm to the point where people regularly message me for my opinion, ask me questions or point to my threads as examples of good work on here. I didn't get to that point by blowing sunshine up anyone's ass — I got there by writing OPs that made people think, by engaging and befriending the better writers on here, by backing up my arguments and by being, for lack of a better word, smart.

Let me give a modified version of your analogy:

Premise: To star your car, you need [A] and .

From this we can only draw two logical conclusions:

1. If your car starts, then you must also have satisfied [A] and . Simplified: If car starts, then you have A + B

2. If you have not satisfied either [A] or (or both), then your car will not start.

Having only one of A or B will guarantee your car will not start. Yet, having both A and B might not guarantee to start your car either. Since there might be a necessary condition [C] that no one knows about.

It's true that there might be a missing [C] component, sure. The point though is that there's more to it than just [A] (Targaryen blood), and yet that, for some reason, is the component everyone keeps insisting is "the" one.

You also don't offer up a scenario (and I didn't either, I know) where you use only . You go right from "[A] + = Success" to thinking both [A] and are necessary, without testing for on its own.

[nirolo]

It's true that there might be a missing [C] component, sure. The point though is that there's more to it than just [A] (Targaryen blood), and yet that, for some reason, is the component everyone keeps insisting is "the" one.

You also don't offer up a scenario (and I didn't either, I know) where you use only . You go right from "[A] + = Success" to thinking both [A] and are necessary, without testing for on its own.

I never assumed [A] + = Success. I said IF success, THEN [A] + ; IF success --> [A] + . The arrow only goes in one direction. It would be an "equal sign" had I said "if and only if".

I know it might seem like I am nitpicking, but I am not. Pinky swear.

All we know is that dragons hatched, and we have all these possible ingredients present; Dany, MMD, dead corpses, oil, wood, fire, the comet, etc. There simply isn't enough to accept or deny any of these factors as a necessary or sufficient condition for raising dragons. So my question is, why the insistence on denying Dany's possible role in all of this?

ETA: I should correct myself by saying Targaryen blood is NOT a sufficient condition for hatching dragons, but that does not mean it is not a necessary condition. It could simply mean there are other unmet necessary conditions that go along with Targaryen blood.

Oh, I know you don't care what I think. Nonetheless, I feel obligated to pay my dues when speaking to The Apple Martini.

[The Idiots Lantern]

I will bold all the needlessly insulting parts, just so I can speed up the illustration of what might be meant by "hostiles."

One argument is based on someone who did pretty mind-boggling analysis of the entire pyre scene to reach her conclusion. The other is based on people who are so desperately eager to make Dany magical that they're actually arguing that her tolerating hot baths is evidence of some genetic godliness.

This how you see it, because you follow and support the analysis that this person put so much work into. I appreciate the work, but I believe the conclusions from which the event is analyzed is mistaken nonetheless. Which is fine: I think you can look at something closely and still see it wrong.

Keep in mind it's only wrong from my own perspective. I am the Idiot, after all.

Like the author said, it was a miracle. And by definition, not something that could be planned, predicted or replicated. Everything GRRM says about the event hints at its miraculous nature, its one-time status — nothing to suggest that it had jack shit to do with Dany or more specifically with any inherent magical power she possessed. It was a freak event in the most literal sense. It can either be a miracle or it can be something to do with Dany having supar speshul dragonz blood. It can't be both and seeing as the author spelled out that it's the former, I'm pretty comfortable writing off that it's the latter — especially given that, for being allegedly magical, Dany has yet to have any episode close to what happened on the pyre; other people around her are doing magic; she does none.

If a human lights a candle to cast a spell, and the spell works, which has the magic, the human or the candle? Dany somehow knew where to put all the pieces to get three long-dead dragon eggs to hatch, something even her own relatives hadn't managed to do in over a hundred years. No, it probably won't be repeated. This does not mean it was an accident, or a coincidence, or a "freak" event, as you so elegantly put it. It happened for some kind of reason.

And I'm still baffled as to where the idea of magical Targaryen blood being necessary to hatch dragons came from, given that Targaryens have been trying for 100+ years to hatch dragons and have failed.

Somehow I doubt the Targs were sacrificing their own blood to the cause.

Shouldn't that be a clue that there's maybe possibly more to it or something else to it than that? If being a Targaryen was the Staples Easy Button, the Targs should've been hatching eggs left and right after the adult dragons died out — but they didn't. Why? ... Possibly because it has nothing to do with the blood? Maybe?

Maybe, but I think if ANYONE'S blood would do, then finding someone to sacrifice would be the easy part when you're the all-powerful ruler of a land, answering to neither gods nor men. When the required price is the life of one of your own children...well, maybe it's convenient to forget that little detail. Dragons are handy, but it's not impossible that someone decided they loved their family more then they loved power.

Let's say I swear up and down that Thing A is necessary to make my car start, but I've tried Thing A a hundred times and it has never worked. One day I decide to use Thing A and Thing B, and this time it starts. What's likelier? That Thing A was what did it, or Thing B? Wouldn't I be kind of, uh, obtuse, to still try to claim that Thing A was the component?

Just to clarify, did Things A and B levitate right into the car in the proper alignment to fix the problem, or was there a mechanic involved in the process somewhere?

[nirolo]

[...]

Keep in mind it's only wrong from my own perspective. I am the Idiot, after all.

[...]

Nicely done! Armor yourself in their insults, and they will not be able to harm you.

[The Idiots Lantern]

Idiot, what you described (in the portion I snipped for space) is more of an argument that Dany had a prophetic dream, not that her magical skill set is a superhuman ability to withstand hot baths. The Targaryens are known for prophetic dreams. They are not known for withstanding flames.

True, but we were in Dany's head the whole time and at no point do I remember her saying "and now I'll put the eggs on my husband's funeral fire, just like my dream, and now I'll step away, just like my dream, and now I'll pour the oil on the witch, just like my dream..." I've read the dragon-dreams like everyone else, and they're not exactly specific.

The magical person at the scene - the one who was doing the work to cause the eggs to hatch and to create a fireproof moment - was MMD, not Dany. That MMD did not survive her own magic does not make her any less magical. Beric didn't survive his own magic, but we can't deny that his life and deaths and kiss of fire were not magical.

True, but Beric finished casting his spell before he died. Mirri wasn't singing for very long before her voice turned to screams, which then died down. She was silent before the eggs started hatching and Dany could walk into the fire after them, which implies to me that it was her DEATH, not her spell, that got the magic going that night.

[FittleLinger]

I never assumed [A] + = Success. I said IF success, THEN [A] + ; IF success --> [A] + . The arrow only goes in one direction. It would be an "equal sign" had I said "if and only if".

I know it might seem like I am nitpicking, but I am not. Pinky swear.

All we know is that dragons hatched, and we have all these possible ingredients present; Dany, MMD, dead corpses, oil, wood, fire, the comet, etc. There simply isn't enough to accept or deny any of these factors as a necessary or sufficient condition for raising dragons. So my question is, why the insistence on denying Dany's possible role in all of this?

ETA: I should correct myself by saying Targaryen blood is NOT a sufficient condition for hatching dragons, but that does not mean it is not a necessary condition. It could simply mean there are other unmet necessary conditions that go along with Targaryen blood.

Oh, I know you don't care what I think. Nonetheless, I feel obligated to pay my dues when speaking to The Apple Martini.

But how do you know, if you haven't tried B and only B? How would you know that A =/= 0 in this potential success scenario?

In other words, how would you know if the car won't start with B and B only if noone has ever tried it, because they were thrown dust in their eyes that they need a very special A component?

[Dr. Pepper]

True, but we were in Dany's head the whole time and at no point do I remember her saying "and now I'll put the eggs on my husband's funeral fire, just like my dream, and now I'll step away, just like my dream, and now I'll pour the oil on the witch, just like my dream..." I've read the dragon-dreams like everyone else, and they're not exactly specific.

I'm not sure I understand the argument you are making here. Are you suggesting that Martin has a habit of spoonfeeding his readers? Dany has ten chapters in AGoT. Dany is thinking about dragons and having a superhuman heat tolerance since chapter one. She has at least two dreams about dragons (one where she is consumed by dragon flame, one when she's in labor). She puts the eggs onto a brazier and watches them. She thinks about how fire cannot kill a dragon when Viserys was killed by molten metal. When she's standing in front of the pyre, she thinks, She had sensed the truth of it long ago, Dany thought as she took a step closer to the conflagration, but the brazier had not been hot enough.

There are about a dozen examples in the novels where we are inside a characters head as they are doing or thinking something and yet we don't see their entire thought process (Ned and RLJ, Tyrion with his 123, Dany with her Dracarys, etc). Not being spoonfed everything Dany is thinking at that moment is not odd. I think, in that moment, we are tricked into believing Targaryen propaganda has truth to it. Close, analytical rereading proves Targaryen fireproofness is just propaganda.

The dragon dreams are pretty darn specific, especially in hindsight. Daeron dreams a black dragon falling on Dunk and it happens, only the 'dragon' was Baelor. Daemon II dreams a dragon hatching from Whitewalls and it happens, only it was Egg.

True, but Beric finished casting his spell before he died. Mirri wasn't singing for very long before her voice turned to screams, which then died down. She was silent before the eggs started hatching and Dany could walk into the fire after them, which implies to me that it was her DEATH, not her spell, that got the magic going that night.

There was something other than MMD's death that caused the eggs to hatch and the protection spell to work. Death at a dragon-hatching event did not previously work. The spell singing seemed to work. And yes, Beric died after, same as MMD. She kept singing even after she was on fire.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I have already read it. And I wish you wouldn't imply that the only reason one might disagree with you is because they obviously haven't done enough research. This is the hostility we've been talking about.

I think Dany did more than light the fire. Everything that happened that night happened because she arranged it. She arranged Drogo's corpse on the pyre and put her three dead stone eggs on the platform with him. She had them tie the witch to the pyre. She poured the oil on the witch. She stood back. And she KNEW it was going to work. That part should not be overlooked. We were inside her head as she assembled all these pieces, and one thing we didn't see was any doubt or worry about what Mirri was going to sing or chant, which implies to me that either she predicted what spell she was going to use and how it was going to misfire and fireproof her and everything else, or she knew that nothing Mirri could cast would change anything. She was exchanging death for life, these eggs were being hatched, and nothing was going to stop it.

Which seems more magical to you, I suppose: the woman screaming and burning to death on a pyre or the one who arranged the fire, waits until the right time, then walks right into that selfsame fire and walks right out again, unscathed, holding three newborn baby dragons? Who's plan worked?

We know the Valyrians had magic that modern Westerosi don't understand. Maybe the centuries that the Valyrians spent using dragon-related blood magic means that the descendants of their noble lines MIGHT have an affinity for that kind of magic.... It'd make a certain kind of sense: blood magic affecting the bloodlines... and it might explain the "royal blood" thing that Melissandre says is so important to her spellwork. Just maybe.

Very good point. Dany's plan worked and she hatched the dragons. i think people are forgetting that Dany is the one who wanted to hatch the dragons, not MMD. It seems like the argument here is that half of the posters are saying MMD is special and magical and Dany is neither. I am not denying that MMD is magical, but her magic isn't great at all is it? Dany saved her from getting raped for the 10th time or whatever that day, Dany thought she was helping MMD, obviously MMD would have preferred to die that day or who knows what, but the result is she held a grudge and was pissed at Dany. So in retribution for Dany saving her, she claimed to be able to heal Drogo's wound, which she failed miserably at (or made it fester on purpose, not a hard feat really). Then once he is so far gone from the wound, MMD claims she can save his life to Dany. But instead of saving him, she turned him into a live vegetable and sacrificed Dany's unborn son and Drogo's horse in the process. So her magic kind of sucked really, thoros does a much better job of saving people who are close to death, and BTW Thoros doesn't even need a blood sacrifice around to do it. He just breathes his kiss of life into beric what 9 times or something and brings him right back with no death or sacrifice required at all.

Now MMD has 2 life sacrifices, unborn Rhaego and the Stallion, she still can't save Drogo more than making him the lay still vegetable. But she does very much piss Dany off by killing her baby. So then Dany, on her own and with no advice at all, sets up the pyre and the blood sacrifice, namely MMD (only 1 sacrifice BTW), walks into it the pyre, doesn't get burned for whatever reason and her dragons are born and that's it.

So all three dragons are born and Dany is fine. MMD served her purpose as the 'sacrifice', IMO that is all she contributed to the pyre, she was the sacrifice. Of course she started chanting, she was about to burn to death. 'Any man will cast about in a moment of stress', So I am sure she was trying to chant to whatever gods or magic she holds dear to save herself some of the inevitable pain that was about to happen, did it work?? NO she died terribly just like Dany planned. MMD's magic was not that strong, not as strong as THoros' and not strong enough to save her life in the pyre, nor was it strong enough to save Drogo properly even though she had 2 sacrifices.

These ideas would not make sense if we did not see how easily Thoros brings Beric back, and while MMD and Thoros probably dont subscribe to the same religion she is obviously no where near as strong as he is in the 'magical arts'. So IMO her presence at the pyre was nothing more than to be sacrificed and that she was not that good at the spells she claimed would work.

[SeanF]

Very good point. Dany's plan worked and she hatched the dragons. i think people are forgetting that Dany is the one who wanted to hatch the dragons, not MMD. It seems like the argument here is that half of the posters are saying MMD is special and magical and Dany is neither. I am not denying that MMD is magical, but her magic isn't great at all is it? Dany saved her from getting raped for the 10th time or whatever that day, Dany thought she was helping MMD, obviously MMD would have preferred to die that day or who knows what, but the result is she held a grudge and was pissed at Dany. So in retribution for Dany saving her, she claimed to be able to heal Drogo's wound, which she failed miserably at (or made it fester on purpose, not a hard feat really). Then once he is so far gone from the wound, MMD claims she can save his life to Dany. But instead of saving him, she turned him into a live vegetable and sacrificed Dany's unborn son and Drogo's horse in the process. So her magic kind of sucked really, thoros does a much better job of saving people who are close to death, and BTW Thoros doesn't even need a blood sacrifice around to do it. He just breathes his kiss of life into beric what 9 times or something and brings him right back with no death or sacrifice required at all.

Now MMD has 2 life sacrifices, unborn Rhaego and the Stallion, she still can't save Drogo more than making him the lay still vegetable. But she does very much piss Dany off by killing her baby. So then Dany, on her own and with no advice at all, sets up the pyre and the blood sacrifice, namely MMD (only 1 sacrifice BTW), walks into it the pyre, doesn't get burned for whatever reason and her dragons are born and that's it.

So all three dragons are born and Dany is fine. MMD served her purpose as the 'sacrifice', IMO that is all she contributed to the pyre, she was the sacrifice. Of course she started chanting, she was about to burn to death. 'Any man will cast about in a moment of stress', So I am sure she was trying to chant to whatever gods or magic she holds dear to save herself some of the inevitable pain that was about to happen, did it work?? NO she died terribly just like Dany planned. MMD's magic was not that strong, not as strong as THoros' and not strong enough to save her life in the pyre, nor was it strong enough to save Drogo properly even though she had 2 sacrifices.

These ideas would not make sense if we did not see how easily Thoros brings Beric back, and while MMD and Thoros probably dont subscribe to the same religion she is obviously no where near as strong as he is in the 'magical arts'. So IMO her presence at the pyre was nothing more than to be sacrificed and that she was not that good at the spells she claimed would work.

Why do you think Mirri's magic was not strong? I've always taken the view that she deliberately killed Rhaego and left Drogo in a vegetative state, rather than this happening by accident. WRT the rape, even the most powerful mage can't do much when 40,000 Dothraki storm her town. However, I rather suspect that Mirri's magic was directed towards healing, rather than providing any real resistance to an attack.

I don't know whether she was working a spell to save herself on the pyre, and the fire burned too quickly for her, or if she was just singing to try and keep her spirits up.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Why do you think Mirri's magic was not strong? I've always taken the view that she deliberately killed Rhaego and left Drogo in a vegetative state, rather than this happening by accident. WRT the rape, even the most powerful mage can't do much when 40,000 Dothraki storm her town. However, I rather suspect that Mirri's magic was directed towards healing, rather than providing any real resistance to an attack.

I don't know whether she was working a spell to save herself on the pyre, and the fire burned too quickly for her, or if she was just singing to try and keep her spirits up.

Either way she is false, if she told Dany she could heal Drogo's wound and instead let it fester, she's not doing any magic anyway and she's a liar, or she was trying to help him and failed. And then if she told Dany she could save Drogo, but instead took 2 lives to give her an inanimate husband, then she was either lying again or she is unable to do it and again proves she is not powerful. In both situations she is either a liar or not powerful, which proves that she is not the one who causes the dragons to hatch as she is either a proven false liar who cannot be trusted in anything she says or does, or she is just an unskilled healer, at the pyre she was just a sacrifice and that's it. And yet again at the Pyre, she is not powerful enough to save herself or stop Dany from doing what she intended with the Dragons. So in no way does MMD ever prove to be powerful or a reliable source of anything.

[FittleLinger]

Either way she is false, if she told Dany she could heal Drogo's wound and instead let it fester, she's not doing any magic anyway and she's a liar, or she was trying to help him and failed. And then if she told Dany she could save Drogo, but instead took 2 lives to give her an inanimate husband, then she was either lying again or she is unable to do it and again proves she is not powerful. In both situations she is either a liar or not powerful, which proves that she is not the one who causes the dragons to hatch, she was just a sacrifice and that's it.

How does being a meanie, a liar, or not powerful enough to reanimate a person just like he was before his death (none of the mages we've seen can do this without reprecussions) mean that she did not cause the dragons to hatch one way or another?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

How does being a meanie, a liar, or not powerful enough to reanimate a person just like he was before his death (none of the mages we've seen can do this without reprecussions) mean that she did not cause the dragons to hatch one way or another?

Well it makes her loose all credibilty. If you want ignore the fact that all her magic has failed thus far, or she has just flat out lied about everything, but still think she was the soul person responsible for the hatching, then that's your choice, but it seems very flimsy to me. Plus why would someone who lies, doesn't preform any good magic, and dies right afterwards be the person GRRM chooses to give responsibility for the dragons hatching too?? She has a relatively short run in the books, and you are choosing to ignore a ton of textual evidence that it was in fact Dany who made the pyre and hatching happen, by choosing a blood sacrifice and giving herself to the flames to become the mother of the dragons.

It seems like you want MMD to have all the power to further discredit Dany, but she has proven to be either a false liar or an unskilled healer at best. There is no evidence anywhere in the text that shows MMD as an extremely powerful person. Dany just makes a huge mistake in saving and trusting this woman.

And yeah no one can bring people back without reprecussions but Thoros does a hell of a lot better job than MMD does and without any blood sacrifices.

[Sasha Steelsong]

I agree with you, GRRM said she is not immune to heat, she just has a higher tolerance. he put in the statement about the baths, I have never really thought the bath was a great argument. But how can you argue with what he said?

"The Targaryans can tolerate a bit more heat than most ordinary people"

Why would he say that if it were not true?

It can be true and still be meaningless. If this supposed heat resistance/tolerance really is only they like hot baths then it is a nice detail and all but really nothing of significance. The point is that it was conversation filler in an interview with no actual relevance to the plot itself.

[SeanF]

Either way she is false, if she told Dany she could heal Drogo's wound and instead let it fester, she's not doing any magic anyway and she's a liar, or she was trying to help him and failed. And then if she told Dany she could save Drogo, but instead took 2 lives to give her an inanimate husband, then she was either lying again or she is unable to do it and again proves she is not powerful. In both situations she is either a liar or not powerful, which proves that she is not the one who causes the dragons to hatch as she is either a proven false liar who cannot be trusted in anything she says or does, or she is just an unskilled healer, at the pyre she was just a sacrifice and that's it. And yet again at the Pyre, she is not powerful enough to save herself or stop Dany from doing what she intended with the Dragons. So in no way does MMD ever prove to be powerful or a reliable source of anything.

I wouldn't argue that Mirri made the dragons hatch. I'm convinced by Tze's argument on the Pyre thread that making the dragons hatch is the last thing that Mirri would want.

Nor do I doubt (although plenty of people dispute this) that she did lie to Dany. Either she knew that the spell to revive Drogo would not work, or she deliberately worked it in such a way that he'd be reduced to a vegetable - and took the opportunity to kill Rhaego at the same time.

Nor would I say that Dany's role in hatching the dragons was incidental. Intuitvely, she had realised that what was needed to hatch the dragons was a human sacrifice. And, she had a victim to hand. IMO, what caused the dragons to hatch for Dany, while they failed to hatch at Summerhall, was the existence of a deliberate sacrifice, rather than an accidental death.

If Dany didn't have Mirri to hand, I wonder who she'd have chosen to tie to the pyre.